Summary of findings 2. Herbal agents versus placebo for infantile colic.
| Herbal agents versus placebo for infantile colic | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients with infantile colic Settings: multi‐speciality clinics (Russia); university hospitals (Turkey, Italy); primary community‐based clinics (Israel) Intervention: herbal agents versus placebo | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No. of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Control | Herbal agents vs placebo | |||||
| Reduction in crying duration Difference before and after treatment (hours per day of crying) Follow‐up: mean 7 days | Mean reduction in crying duration in control groups was 0.22 hours/d. | Mean reduction in crying duration in intervention groups was 1.33 higher (0.71 to 1.96 higher). | MD 1.33 (0.71 to 1.96) | 279 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ Lowa,b | ‐ |
| Responders Number of infants who improved after treatment Follow‐up: mean 7 days | Study population | RR 2.05 (1.56 to 2.7) | 277 (3 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ Moderatec | ‐ | |
| 326 per 1000 | 669 per 1000 (509 to 881) | |||||
| Moderate | ||||||
| 257 per 1000 | 527 per 1000 (401 to 694) | |||||
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; GRADE: Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation; MD: mean difference; RR: risk ratio. | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
aOne study with high risk of selection, performance, detection, reporting and other bias. bVery high heterogeneity (96%). cTwo studies with unclear risk of selection bias.